During yesterday’s game, I went through the Rice box scores to try to address some of the questions regarding our performance to date. For each proposition, I compiled the stats because I thought that the proposition was incorrect. The numbers presented cover the first 28 games (i.e., through Friday, March 28)

Here was the first proposition:

“If you measure plate discipline by BBs/game and the differential between free passes and strikeouts, then without question we have gotten worse as the season progresses.”

Here are the stats (Week 7 does not include Saturday’s game):

Week BB/inning BB:SO
Week 1 0.6 1.1
Week 2 0.5 2.0
Week 3 0.1 0.2
Week 4 0.4 0.7
Week 5 0.4 0.6
Week 6 0.5 1.3
Week 7 0.1 0.1

First 14 games: 0.4 BB/inning, 0.8 walks per strikeout
Next 14 games 0.4 BB/inning, 0.6 walks per strikeout

Looking at the numbers, I’ll say that there was some truth but more fiction in the first proposition.

(03-30-2014 07:09 AM)temchugh Wrote:  During yesterday’s game, I went through the Rice box scores to try to address some of the questions regarding our performance to date. For each proposition, I compiled the stats because I thought that the proposition was incorrect. The numbers presented cover the first 28 games (i.e., through Friday, March 28)

Here was the first proposition:

“If you measure plate discipline by BBs/game and the differential between free passes and strikeouts, then without question we have gotten worse as the season progresses.”

Here are the stats (Week 7 does not include Saturday’s game):

Week BB/inning BB:SO
Week 1 0.6 1.1
Week 2 0.5 2.0
Week 3 0.1 0.2
Week 4 0.4 0.7
Week 5 0.4 0.6
Week 6 0.5 1.3
Week 7 0.1 0.1

First 14 games: 0.4 BB/inning, 0.8 walks per strikeout
Next 14 games 0.4 BB/inning, 0.6 walks per strikeout

Looking at the numbers, I’ll say that there was some truth but more fiction in the first proposition.

Not BB:K ratio, which I already stated (in a response to Mike several weeks back) was not used to evaluate offensive performance; ratheer, the gap or differential betwween free passes (BBs, HBPs) and strikeouts. The latter figure has gotten worse as the season progresses (with week to week variation, of course). Again, do the calculation as a YTD total each week; not each week in isolation (which allows the numbers to be distorted by single games such as the Texas State game in which the opposing pitchers were so wild we couldn't help but walk 10 times, and get hit 4 times).

Here was the second proposition:

“I don't think the data suggests [that we have improved against left handed pitchers as the season has progressed]. We HAVE struggled this year against left-handed pitching, save for a couple exceptions.”

Opponents have started righties in 15 games and lefties in 13 games. We have played 111 total inning against lefties and 147.2 total innings against righties.

Record when the other team starts a righty: 12-3
Record when the other team starts a lefty: 8-5

For the 20 games we have won (before Saturday), a right-handed pitcher has taken the loss in 10 games and a left-handed pitcher has taken the loss in 10 games.

First 14 games against righties (64.1 innings):

Hits/inning Runs/inning BB/inning SO/Inning
1.1 0.73 0.53 0.53

First 14 games against lefties (59.1 innings):

Hits/inning Runs/inning BB/inning SO/Inning
0.89 0.47 0.30 0.44

Next 14 games against righties (83.1 innings):

Hits/inning Runs/inning BB/inning SO/Inning
1.2 0.70 0.47 0.66

Next 14 games against lefties (51.2 innings):

Hits/inning Runs/inning BB/inning SO/Inning
1.1 0.52 0.25 0.66


I don’t see clear evidence of progress during the season, so I was wrong on that one. It looks to me like we hit OK against lefties. But it is interesting that we draw almost half as many walks against lefties compared to righties. That difference shows up in the number of runs scored.

Here is the third proposition:

"Our team onbase percentage (.358) is sub-par, and we currently have just one player above the .400 OBP level. This has got to improve if we are to become legitimate Omaha contenders."

This analysis is repeated from the Friday game thread, but seems relevant here. I looked at ISR and chose the three highest ranked teams with a strength of schedule in the top 20:

Texas: ISR #1, SoS #15
BA: 0.262
OB%: 0.352
BB:108
HBP: 16
SO: 129

Rice: ISR #6, SoS #9
BA: 0.279
OB%: 0.354
BB:105
HBP: 18
SO: 146

Oregon: ISR #11, SoS #17
BA: 0.269
OB%: 0.359
BB:88
HBP: 36
SO: 189

(03-30-2014 07:22 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Not BB:K ratio, which I already stated (in a response to Mike several weeks back) was not used to evaluate offensive performance; ratheer, the gap or differential betwween free passes (BBs, HBPs) and strikeouts. The latter figure has gotten worse as the season progresses (with week to week variation, of course). Again, do the calculation as a YTD total each week; not each week in isolation (which allows the numbers to be distorted by single games such as the Texas State game in which the opposing pitchers were so wild we couldn't help but walk 10 times, and get hit 4 times).

I did not capture the HBP numbers, but I have a hard time believing that adding those would change the pattern. We have 18 total HBP compared to 106 BB.

Walks minus strike outs:

Week 1: 2
Week 2: 11
Week 3: -19
Week 4: -9
Week 5: -16
Week 6: 4
Week 7: -18

Weeks 1 and 2 were clearly better than the rest of the season. A running total would show an apparent trend just because weeks 1 and 2 would be weighted less and less each progressive week.

(03-30-2014 07:45 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Here is the third proposition:

"Our team onbase percentage (.358) is sub-par, and we currently have just one player above the .400 OBP level. This has got to improve if we are to become legitimate Omaha contenders."

This analysis is repeated from the Friday game thread, but seems relevant here. I looked at ISR and chose the three highest ranked teams with a strength of schedule in the top 20:

Texas: ISR #1, SoS #15
BA: 0.262
OB%: 0.352
BB:108
HBP: 16
SO: 129

Rice: ISR #6, SoS #9
BA: 0.279
OB%: 0.354
BB:105
HBP: 18
SO: 146

Oregon: ISR #11, SoS #17
BA: 0.269
OB%: 0.359
BB:88
HBP: 36
SO: 189

Relevant? Again, you're comparing Rice's offensive stats to two of the worst hitting teams in the Top 50...and I'd also list total games played to better reflect the context of the total BBs and K numbers. I know you're trying to compare us with other teams with similar SoS, but this comparison is VERY misleading given those other two programs were know even before the season to have little offense. BTW, SoS most definitely has an impact on AVG and SLG, but I question if it has the same impact on the number of free passes received.

People have accused me in the past of basing some of my conclusions too much on the stat sheet, but I do watch over 75% of the games-- either in person or on OwlVision...and, consequently, try to add perspective to the numbers. IMO, while stats don't lie, they can be very misleading at times, and your attempts at concluding that we do not have an issue against left-handed pitching or that our offense is nor worse than other top teams simply does not pass the eye test. Sure, there are games we've played this year when we have blasted poor left-handed pitching, just as there are games when we have scored double-digit runs...but we've scored 3 or less runs in half our games (14 of 29 games), and 2 or less in one-third of our games (10 of 29 games)...and many of those games have occurred against weaker teams with sub-100 RPI (MTSU, Lamar, FAU, Purdue).

BTW, this weekend we are facing a relatively weak team with a pitching staff that came into the series with a very poor 1.75 K:BB ratio, and averaging giving up 4.6 walks/game...but against us, in the first two games, we have received all of two walks (just one each game) while striking out 16 times (giving MTSU pitchers an 8:1 K:BB ratio)...and against Lamar on Wednesday, we had 2 BBs against 11 Ks. And we're doing this when our offense is obviously struggling, when we should be looking to get on base any way possible. Instead, we're first pitch swinging at an alarming rate up and down the lineup, and taking called strike 3 at a far too frequent rate (instead of wasting 2-strike pitches by trying to foul them off). So please don't tell me our plate discipline is not an issue. It is, regardless what your stats may be showing.

(03-30-2014 08:00 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 07:45 AM)temchugh Wrote:  Here is the third proposition:

"Our team onbase percentage (.358) is sub-par, and we currently have just one player above the .400 OBP level. This has got to improve if we are to become legitimate Omaha contenders."

This analysis is repeated from the Friday game thread, but seems relevant here. I looked at ISR and chose the three highest ranked teams with a strength of schedule in the top 20:

Texas: ISR #1, SoS #15
BA: 0.262
OB%: 0.352
BB:108
HBP: 16
SO: 129

Rice: ISR #6, SoS #9
BA: 0.279
OB%: 0.354
BB:105
HBP: 18
SO: 146

Oregon: ISR #11, SoS #17
BA: 0.269
OB%: 0.359
BB:88
HBP: 36
SO: 189

Relevant? Again, you're comparing Rice's offensive stats to two of the worst hitting teams in the Top 50...and I'd also list total games played to better reflect the context of the total BBs and K numbers. I know you're trying to compare us with other teams with similar SoS, but this comparison is VERY misleading given those other two programs were know even before the season to have little offense. BTW, SoS most definitely has an impact on AVG and SLG, but I question if it has the same impact on the number of free passes received.

People have accused me in the past of basing some of my conclusions too much on the stat sheet, but I do watch over 75% of the games-- either in person or on OwlVision...and, consequently, try to add perspective to the numbers. IMO, while stats don't lie, they can be very misleading at times, and your attempts at concluding that we do not have an issue against left-handed pitching or that our offense is nor worse than other top teams simply does not pass the eye test. Sure, there are games we've played this year when we have blasted poor left-handed pitching, just as there are games when we have scored double-digit runs...but we've scored 3 or less runs in half our games (14 of 29 games), and 2 or less in one-third of our games (10 of 29 games)...and many of those games have occurred against weaker teams with sub-100 RPI (MTSU, Lamar, FAU, Purdue).

BTW, this weekend we are facing a relatively weak team with a pitching staff that came into the series with a very poor 1.75 K:BB ratio, and averaging giving up 4.6 walks/game...but against us, in the first two games, we have received all of two walks (just one each game) while striking out 16 times (giving MTSU pitchers an 8:1 K:BB ratio)...and against Lamar on Wednesday, we had 2 BBs against 11 Ks. And we're doing this when our offense is obviously struggling, when we should be looking to get on base any way possible. Instead, we're first pitch swinging at an alarming rate up and down the lineup, and taking called strike 3 at a far too frequent rate (instead of wasting 2-strike pitches by trying to foul them off). So please don't tell me our plate discipline is not an issue. It is, regardless what your stats may be showing.

Walt - I think that your case is weakest on this issue. If you want impressive offensive stats, play a weak schedule:

Here are three more teams with hard schedules (selected by moving down the ISR list and taking the best teams with hard schedules):

Florida: ISR#21, SoS #26 (27 games)
BA: 0.260
OB%: 0.337
BB:85
HBP: 24
SO: 162

Cal State Fullerton: ISR#23, SoS #10 (23 games)
BA: 0.245
OB%: 0.351
BB:102
HBP: 31
SO: 157

Stanford: ISR#26, SoS #1 (20 games)
BA: 0.255
OB%: 0.345
BB:73
HBP: 22
SO: 131

Here are the three teams closest to Rice in ISR but with much weaker schedules:

Florida State: ISR#4, SoS #63 (27 games)
BA: 0.290
OB%: 0.414
BB:163
HBP: 43
SO: 199

Cal Poly: ISR#5, SoS #98 (26 games)
BA: 0.296
OB%: 0.388
BB:105
HBP: 38
SO: 159

La-Lafayette: ISR#7, SoS #185 (28 games)
BA: 0.311
OB%: 0.412
BB:127
HBP: 52
SO: 167

Rice had only one walk in yesterday's game, but 16 hits. Surely a high hit total helps explain the low hit total. 8 runs and 16 hits isn't struggling. Game 1 was a struggle, but not yesterday.

CSF and Stanford are two other teams with known offensive deficiencies (but elite-level pitching in the case of the Titans). Contrary to CSF, Stanford, UT and Oregon, we were supposed to have an above-average offensive club. We don't at this point in the season, and our lack of plate discipline only compounds the problem.

(03-30-2014 08:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Rice had only one walk in yesterday's game, but 16 hits. Surely a high hit total helps explain the low hit total. 8 runs and 16 hits isn't struggling. Game 1 was a struggle, but not yesterday.

Sorry, but a high number of hits do not help explain the meager walk total...and as I mentioned in my post-game post yesterday, 8 runs on 16 hits (5 for extrabases) and 4 errors by the opposing team is not indicative of an efficient offense. To the contrary. I believe only 3 of our runs yesterday were earned...and only one on Friday.

Well now you're arguing with success. 16 hits is a good result. It indicates the pitching was very hittable, so the batters swung away instead of watching.

I would argue that, in the final analysis, that OBP is a better marker of offensive success.
A la Moneyball.

Lies, damned lies..and statistics.

In OBP, Rice in the middle of the pack of the elite (per ISR) teams temchugh listed so far.

(03-30-2014 08:34 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  CSF and Stanford are two other teams with known offensive deficiencies (but elite-level pitching in the case of the Titans). Contrary to CSF, Stanford, UT and Oregon, we were supposed to have an above-average offensive club. We don't at this point in the season, and our lack of plate discipline only compounds the problem.

To summarize: these six of these teams (Texas, Rice, Oregon, Florida, CSF, and Stanford) have remarkably similar batting averages and on-base percentages. Four of them have "known offensive deficiencies" which apparently covers both hitting and plate discipline. Rice and Florida are under performing. None of them will be legitimate contenders for Omaha unless they turn things around.

(03-30-2014 08:48 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  In OBP, Rice in the middle of the pack of the elite (per ISR) teams temchugh listed so far.

Give me a break-- temchugh picked and chose those teams. And even then, our OBP is only better than the worst OBP teams amongst the elite by the slightest of margins. Can we please stop trying to find ways of bragging about a decidedly sub-par .352 OBP.

(03-30-2014 08:54 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:34 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  CSF and Stanford are two other teams with known offensive deficiencies (but elite-level pitching in the case of the Titans). Contrary to CSF, Stanford, UT and Oregon, we were supposed to have an above-average offensive club. We don't at this point in the season, and our lack of plate discipline only compounds the problem.

To summarize: these six of these teams (Texas, Rice, Oregon, Florida, CSF, and Stanford) have remarkably similar batting averages and on-base percentages. Four of them have "known offensive deficiencies" which apparently covers both hitting and plate discipline. Rice and Florida are under performing. None of them will be legitimate contenders for Omaha unless they turn things around.

One small difference in your sarcastic remark-- several of those other teams are outstanding small ball teams, who consistently execute the sac bunt, who excel in situational hitter (going to the right side with a runner on 2B and less than two outs) and who steal bases at a solid and efficient rate. We do none of those things. BTW, whoever ever projected Florida or Stanford to be Omaha teams this year?...and Oregon came in extremely overrated with excellent pitching but not a semblance of returning offense.

(03-30-2014 08:54 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:48 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  In OBP, Rice in the middle of the pack of the elite (per ISR) teams temchugh listed so far.

Give me a break-- temchugh picked and chose those teams. And even then, our OBP is only better than the worst OBP teams amongst the elite by the slightest of margins. Can we please stop trying to find ways of bragging about a decidedly sub-par .352 OBP.

"Only better than the worst" is what "middle of the pack" means.

(03-30-2014 08:54 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:48 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  In OBP, Rice in the middle of the pack of the elite (per ISR) teams temchugh listed so far.

Give me a break-- temchugh picked and chose those teams. And even then, our OBP is only better than the worst OBP teams amongst the elite by the slightest of margins. Can we please stop trying to find ways of bragging about a decidedly sub-par .352 OBP.

I clearly stated the criteria I used to select the teams listed. You said that my first two teams were not representative, so I used the same selection criteria to identify the next three teams. (Unfortunately, it turned out that two of those were also not representative. And, I guess, the fact that our stats are similar to one other team (Florida) does not mean anything.

I have not looked at the stats for any team that I have not listed. I certainly have not selectively chosen teams that support my position and ignored others that do not. If you are going to claim otherwise, please support the claim. Please don't accuse me of cheating just because you don't like the number I have presented.

If you look at the first few posts in this thread, it should be obvious that I'm comfortable presenting numbers that do not support my positions.

(03-30-2014 08:58 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  BTW, whoever ever projected Florida or Stanford to be Omaha teams this year?...and Oregon came in extremely overrated with excellent pitching but not a semblance of returning offense.

Florida was #18 in the preseason composite poll. Flawed CSF was #1. U-La-La and Houston got zero preseason mention. Does that mean that they are not contenders?

I'm not trying to predict who will go to Omaha and who will not. I have no idea if Florida, Stanford, U-La-La, or Houston will make it. I'm just questioning your willingness to discount all of the teams that have played hard schedules and have had strong seasons to date (according on the magic calculations of Mr. Boyd.)

(03-30-2014 09:17 AM)temchugh Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:58 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  BTW, whoever ever projected Florida or Stanford to be Omaha teams this year?...and Oregon came in extremely overrated with excellent pitching but not a semblance of returning offense.

Florida was #18 in the preseason composite poll. Flawed CSF was #1. U-La-La and Houston got zero preseason mention. Does that mean that they are not contenders?

I'm not trying to predict who will go to Omaha and who will not. I have no idea if Florida, Stanford, U-La-La, or Houston will make it. I'm just questioning your willingness to discount all of the teams that have played hard schedules and have had strong seasons to date (according on the magic calculations of Mr. Boyd.)

ULL most definitely got preseason mention as a Top 25 team. As for CSF, their consensus preseason Top 5 ranking was based entirely on their insanely exceptional pitching staff (both in quality and depth), but though they returned only one feared hitter (Conforti, who's struggling this year, just as Aquino is), they are an elite small ball team, and always have been. STanford has had a strong season to date? You do realize they're just 10-10, and that's only because they just took the first two games from Oregon State this weekend.