We would have needed a shutout by AK to win Friday. Considering he had a sub-par outing we had a great series with USM. Comeback victories are the best.

WTG, Owls. Nice series win on the road.

And thanks, eaglenjxn, for the right-on Friday-night prediction (near the end of the Friday-night game thread):

(03-23-2013 01:03 AM)eaglenjxn Wrote:  Bottom line -- you have little to worry about. Look at our schedule. We have been awful all year but are 5-1 on Friday nights--majority being blowouts.

We only hit when Pierce is throwing.

Congratulations to the entire team and coaching staff for a truly hard-fought, come from behind, road series win. We might have imploded in that one debacle of an inning on Friday night, and continue to be far too inefficient on offense (particularly early in games), but one thing you can never accuse this team of, and that's quiting. HUGE series win here after losing Friday night...and we have now won 5 consecutive weekend series this year (three on the road).

Before going further, let me apologize for my "little league" comment earlier (as i was checking in on GameTracker from the health club). Regardless to one's frustration, that was uncalled for and over the line.

Game Ball #1: Skyler Ewing (2-4, HR #2, 1 run scored, 3 RBIs)-- for putting us in front early, and then singling to tie the game at 2-2. The 3rd RBI on a force out proved to be the game-winner.

Game Ball #2: The duo of Keenan Cook (3-5, double, 1 run scored) and Michael Ratterree (1-2, double, 3 BBs, 2 runs scored), who have both raised their AVG and OBP by close to 75 points over the past 2+ weeks.

Game Ball #3: Big John Simms (6.1 IP, 6 hits, 3 runs, 2 BBs, 8 Ks) deserved better, kept us in the game with his early dominance and probably should have left with the lead, but I'm giving it to Zech Lemond (Save #6, 2.0 IP, 0 hits, 0 runs, 0 BBs, 0 Ks)-- who for the second straight day retired 6 consecutive Golden Eagle batters to close out the game and secure the win. Critically important, he's once again pounding the strike zone.

Terrific win to cap off a 4-1 week, a big road conference win, and keep our momentum going. Whoop it up on the long ride home-- you've earned it.

(03-24-2013 03:01 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 02:59 PM)elf owl Wrote:  It seems the failed bunt was universally panned but Teykl has layed down some good ones this season. Needed this one though.

Again, I'm tired of excuses. At this level there is no excuse for not executing the sac bunt AT LEAST 75% of the time. Every team we play does it, yet our percentage (counting foul balls, missed bunts and then swinging away) is 33% at the very best. Inexcusable.

Walt, you jumped the gun again. Nice win guys nice win...thanks for all the fun and excitement you provide the fans!!! Win baby win!

(03-24-2013 03:58 PM)Ira Redberg Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 03:01 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 02:59 PM)elf owl Wrote:  It seems the failed bunt was universally panned but Teykl has layed down some good ones this season. Needed this one though.

Again, I'm tired of excuses. At this level there is no excuse for not executing the sac bunt AT LEAST 75% of the time. Every team we play does it, yet our percentage (counting foul balls, missed bunts and then swinging away) is 33% at the very best. Inexcusable.

Walt, you jumped the gun again. Nice win guys nice win...thanks for all the fun and excitement you provide the fans!!! Win baby win!

Where and how did I jump the gun?

Important win. Good to see Ewing with some RBIs.

If Rice bunts at a 75% rate they fail 25% of the time. If they succeed only 33 % of the time they fail 67% of the time. So how when a batter fails to bunt successfully do you know if it was part of the disgusting 67% and not part of the more acceptable 25%. Blaming Teykl's failure to bunt well on the poor bunting of the Owls and suggesting that his poor bunt was part of the 67% fails to take into account Teykl's own bunting statistics. I have the impression he has laid down some good bunts but that would have to be backed up with statistics. Maybe Teykl can be tarred with the same brush bunting-wise as the Owls as a whole but his work should also stand alone.

Besides, Teykl did not fail to bunt although he did not advance the runner. He should get partial credit. That's how I passed Chem 100. Are you sure about that 75%? It sounds approximately high.

(03-24-2013 04:22 PM)elf owl Wrote:  If Rice bunts at a 75% rate they fail 25% of the time. If they succeed only 33 % of the time they fail 67% of the time. So how when a batter fails to bunt successfully do you know if it was part of the disgusting 67% and not part of the more acceptable 25%. Blaming Teykl's failure to bunt well on the poor bunting of the Owls and suggesting that his poor bunt was part of the 67% fails to take into account Teykl's own bunting statistics. I have the impression he has laid down some good bunts but that would have to be backed up with statistics. Maybe Teykl can be tarred with the same brush bunting-wise as the Owls as a whole but his work should also stand alone.

Check that Walt...crossed the line...
:badger::badger::badger::lock::lock::lock::kneelsucka::kneelsucka:

(03-24-2013 01:18 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 01:02 PM)elf owl Wrote:  Bad luck on the DP. A single for Cook as he continues hot.

Yes, bad luck, but Ford's job there was the advance the runner...and once again (for the umpteenth time) he failed to do so and, consequently, we wasted a leadoff baserunner who would have scored on Cook's single.

Again, Ford is one of our better, more consistent hitters, but he does not belong in the #2 spot in the lineup. He's killing us there and totally wasting Byrd's high OBP. Move Cook or Perrott into the #2 hole, and have Ford bat #3 or #6 or #7. The #2 hole hitter has GOT to be proficient at laying down the bunt and situational hitting. Ford is not.

For those of you not stuck with the Astros as your local 9, Brett Wallace has been named the second hitter in the lineup against right-handers by Bo Porter.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=...u&c_id=hou

Ummm, Brett Wallace probably doesn't have the skills you mention above. Sometimes, it is nice to get a good fastball hitter between a fastguy and a run producer. Just sayin'...

(03-24-2013 04:30 PM)Ira Redberg Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 04:22 PM)elf owl Wrote:  If Rice bunts at a 75% rate they fail 25% of the time. If they succeed only 33 % of the time they fail 67% of the time. So how when a batter fails to bunt successfully do you know if it was part of the disgusting 67% and not part of the more acceptable 25%. Blaming Teykl's failure to bunt well on the poor bunting of the Owls and suggesting that his poor bunt was part of the 67% fails to take into account Teykl's own bunting statistics. I have the impression he has laid down some good bunts but that would have to be backed up with statistics. Maybe Teykl can be tarred with the same brush bunting-wise as the Owls as a whole but his work should also stand alone.

Check that Walt...crossed the line...
:badger::badger::badger::lock::lock::lock::kneelsucka::kneelsucka:

You are getting more artistic in the use of moving icons. Perhaps this is a new form of art?

(03-24-2013 03:42 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 03:41 PM)grol Wrote:  2 out of 3. Way to go Owls.

On the road...

Oh boy, RPI bonus points

(03-24-2013 04:38 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 04:30 PM)Ira Redberg Wrote:  

(03-24-2013 04:22 PM)elf owl Wrote:  If Rice bunts at a 75% rate they fail 25% of the time. If they succeed only 33 % of the time they fail 67% of the time. So how when a batter fails to bunt successfully do you know if it was part of the disgusting 67% and not part of the more acceptable 25%. Blaming Teykl's failure to bunt well on the poor bunting of the Owls and suggesting that his poor bunt was part of the 67% fails to take into account Teykl's own bunting statistics. I have the impression he has laid down some good bunts but that would have to be backed up with statistics. Maybe Teykl can be tarred with the same brush bunting-wise as the Owls as a whole but his work should also stand alone.

Check that Walt...crossed the line...
:badger::badger::badger::lock::lock::lock::kneelsucka::kneelsucka:

You are getting more artistic in the use of moving icons. Perhaps this is a new form of art?

win baby win!!! Emoticons at work!!! Thank you for the shout out!

:ugaexams::towel::towel::towel::dance::dance::dance:

The game was great. Just felt we were going to win. I guess you can't feel confidence from a computer screen. As I read this disgusting display of thinly veiled vile insults directed at the players and coaches from this thread I am just ill. This might be the worst performance from this peanut gallery all year and some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. The irony is that this fictional account coincides with one of the best wins of the year.

Oh and:badger::badger::badger::lock::lock::lock::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams:

(03-24-2013 05:03 PM)mort goldblatt Wrote:  Oh and:badger::badger::badger::lock::lock::lock::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams::ugaexams:

Hey. I call illegal use of emoticons. I don't have some of those. #envy

(03-24-2013 04:22 PM)elf owl Wrote:  If Rice bunts at a 75% rate they fail 25% of the time. If they succeed only 33 % of the time they fail 67% of the time. So how when a batter fails to bunt successfully do you know if it was part of the disgusting 67% and not part of the more acceptable 25%. Blaming Teykl's failure to bunt well on the poor bunting of the Owls and suggesting that his poor bunt was part of the 67% fails to take into account Teykl's own bunting statistics. I have the impression he has laid down some good bunts but that would have to be backed up with statistics. Maybe Teykl can be tarred with the same brush bunting-wise as the Owls as a whole but his work should also stand alone.

??? If you read my in-game posts you would have realized that as Connor came up to plate that time I had commended him on bunting successfully 2 - 3 time already this past week.

(03-24-2013 05:01 PM)mort goldblatt Wrote:  The game was great. Just felt we were going to win. I guess you can't feel confidence from a computer screen. As I read this disgusting display of thinly veiled vile insults directed at the players and coaches from this thread I am just ill. This might be the worst performance from this peanut gallery all year and some of you should be ashamed of yourselves. The irony is that this fictional account coincides with one of the best wins of the year.

I would highly recommend the "block" function. I couldn't take this forum any more until I used it. Now, it's much better with the sweet sound of "this user's post has been blocked".


waltgreenberg The contents of this message are hidden because waltgreenberg is on your ignore list.

(03-24-2013 03:20 PM)Ranger Wrote:  For what it is worth, ECU leads UH 3-0 after seven.

UH wins 5-4 in 10. I went to this one. UH should have won in regulation - 3 Coogs thrown out at the plate, only one was an attempt that should have been made. UH bunting made Rice bunting look good. 2 strikeouts on foul bunt attempts, two bunts popped up to P. Zero successful sac bunts (ECU had 2) in what must have been 6 or 8 attempts.

ECU starter (Lucroy) looked good - 7 ip, 4 hits, 1 ER. FB was nothing special, but he was throwing the off speed stuff (down to 68 mph) for strikes.

And the Owls... STILL HAVEN'T LOST A WEEKEND SERIES!!! Hip-hip-hooray! I missed the game, but replayed it on Gametracker without knowing the outcome (yes, I cover my screen so I can click the "Replay Game" button without seeing the score or who had the last at-bat). :)

Stoked to see some of the bats coming around, and the pitching is stellar as always. Amazing to think of all the incredible arms the OG replaces year in and year out. Was it just a couple seasons ago we were rooting for Cingrani and Duffey as closers?? And Chargois, Duffey, and Simms last year?? And now it's Fox and Lemond?? Outstanding. The OG runs a veritable munitions factory--arms upon arms upon arms. Way to go, Wayne. We salute you.