No rest for the weary. After pulling out a tense 2-1 10-inning victory over Stephen F. Austin last night, the Baseball Owls return to Reckling Park tonight to face a very good UT-SA (13-7, RPI ranking of #44, 3-4 vs. Top 50, including 3 wins against a Washington State team that just won a series against Arizona State last weekend)....and they'll be coming in well rested and with their entire bullpen and pitching staff available since they have not played since Sunday.

The UT-SA Roadrunners are an outstanding offensive club (even if their leading hitter, Daniel Rockett, continues to sit following his recent arrest), hitting .322/.397/.448 as a team, and averaging 3 extrabase hits and 7.0 runs per game. All but two starters are hitting above .300, led by RJ Perucki (.358/.407/.605, 5 HRs, 23 RBIs). They also have a couple guys who crowd the plate and have a penchant for being hit (Mike Warren has already collected 13 HBPs and John Welborn 7). UT-SA is another aggressive, free-swinging team, with batters looking to hack away early in the count. Only one everyday player (Welborn) has double digit walks, and he has just 10; whereas they have 6 players with 14+ strikeout totals. As was the case last night, it would behoove Chase McDaniel to lead with his off-speed and breaking pitches. Another note-- this is a very good two-out hitting team, as they've scored 50% of their runs this year with two outs.

Defensively, the Roadrunners are solid, posting a respectable .964 fielding percentage. They feature one of the very best defensive catchers in the nation (John Bormann), who has thrown out an eye-popping 74% of attempted basestealers (14-19 caught stealing), and has picked off at 1B an additional 6 baserunners. He's allowed only 1 SB in the last 11 games. I don't think you'll see us running tonight, and baserunners should stay alert out there and be aware that Bormann will not hesitate to snap a throw to 1B if he catches one of our baserunners napping. Having said that, the right side of UT-SA's infield has been vulnerable, committing 19 errors so far (SS Pernucki with 10, 3B Correa with 9). The bunt (for both sacrifices and hits) could be a very effective tool in this game.

Pitching has been a strength for the Roadrunners this year, particularly their weekend starters and their bullpen. The staff has pitched to a 3.60 ERA, .269 BAA, 3:1 strikeout:walk ratio. Their bullpen has posted a 9-0 record, with 3 saves, an ERA of 2.89, 70 Ks, only 16 BBs in 84.0 IP. Their closer, Jr RHP Matt Sims has been outstanding: 8 app, 2-0, 2 saves, 11.1 IP, 0.79 ERA, .158 BAA, 2 BBs, 17 Ks. Needless to say, it is important that we strike early and often tonight. Strangely, especially since this is UT-SA's only mid-week game this week, it appears the Roadrunners are going with "all staff" for tonight's game, and starting a guy who has seen very limitted action so far this season, and did not fare well in his lone outing...

So RHP Justin Anderson: 1 start, 0-0, 3.0 IP, 6.00 ERA, .400, 4 hits, 4 BBs, 1 K

This guy appears to have control issues, so let's be patient and not help him out. Sounds like they're preparing to go to their strong bullpen early, and ride it for the majority of the game.

Let's keep streaking by completing the sweep of the home stand, and head into conference play on a roll. Go Owls!

Just a question: Is the "Baseball Owls" reference an attempt to mimic the "New York Football Giants" reference that Chris Berman and others do (I suppose as a way used in the past to differentiate between the baseball and football New York Giants before the baseball team moved to San Francisco).

(03-20-2013 10:42 AM)Volente Beach Owl Wrote:  Just a question: Is the "Baseball Owls" reference an attempt to mimic the "New York Football Giants" reference that Chris Berman and others do (I suppose as a way used in the past to differentiate between the baseball and football New York Giants before the baseball team moved to San Francisco).

Not consciously, athough I am a life-long Big Blue/NY Giants fan.

UTSA starts their conference play this weekend against UT-Arlington. I assume they want their regular weekend starters ready to go, so we get the "all-staff" pitchers tonight.

The stats on John Bormann's defense are impressive.

Justin Anderson is an outstanding 2 way player from Houston St. Pius. I'm guessing he may have battled some injuries as he has made only one appearance as a pitcher and has very few at bats.

Last year, he was a starting pitcher from the get go with many conference outings, and be played his way into the everyday batting order too.

From Boyd's World:

His data goes back to 1997

4/01/1997 Rice 7 Texas-San Antonio 3 @Rice
2/03/1999 Rice 4 Texas-San Antonio 0 @Rice
2/03/1999 Rice 6 Texas-San Antonio 2 @Rice
3/22/2000 Rice 10 Texas-San Antonio 3 @Rice
3/22/2000 Rice 5 Texas-San Antonio 4 @Rice
2/11/2003 Rice 6 Texas-San Antonio 4 @Rice
2/13/2007 Rice 4 Texas-San Antonio 3 @Rice

(03-20-2013 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Another note-- this is a very good two-out hitting team, as they've scored 50% of their runs this year with two outs.

Don't you think that this is the kind of statistical fluke that has no predictive value at all.

(03-20-2013 03:29 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Another note-- this is a very good two-out hitting team, as they've scored 50% of their runs this year with two outs.

Don't you think that this is the kind of statistical fluke that has no predictive value at all.

Probably, but it does indicate that unlike another team we know very well, they don't press with two outs and runners in scoring position. I think our woeful lack of productivity in such situations is not a coincidence and statistical fluke as it's been going on consistently for two years now.

(03-20-2013 03:48 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 03:29 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Another note-- this is a very good two-out hitting team, as they've scored 50% of their runs this year with two outs.

Don't you think that this is the kind of statistical fluke that has no predictive value at all.

Probably, but it does indicate that unlike another team we know very well, they don't press with two outs and runners in scoring position. I think our woeful lack of productivity in such situations is not a coincidence and statistical fluke as it's been going on consistently for two years now.

What is the statistical breakdown of runs scored with 0-1-2 outs for Rice in that timeframe?

(03-20-2013 03:29 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Another note-- this is a very good two-out hitting team, as they've scored 50% of their runs this year with two outs.

Don't you think that this is the kind of statistical fluke that has no predictive value at all.

I would think that you are more likely to have runners in scoring position with two outs than with one or zero outs, making a base knock a scoring play. Thus, scoring 50% of the runs with 2 outs would, it seems to me, be close to the norm for any baseball team. But then what do I know - I played football.

(03-21-2013 04:07 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 03:29 PM)temchugh Wrote:  

(03-20-2013 09:26 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Another note-- this is a very good two-out hitting team, as they've scored 50% of their runs this year with two outs.

Don't you think that this is the kind of statistical fluke that has no predictive value at all.

I would think that you are more likely to have runners in scoring position with two outs than with one or zero outs, making a base knock a scoring play. Thus, scoring 50% of the runs with 2 outs would, it seems to me, be close to the norm for any baseball team. But then what do I know - I played football.

If I wasn't writing my Master's thesis right now, I would definitely tackle this.

Than again, taking breaks does help the mind work sometimes...

Scoring 50% of runs with 2 outs suggests a high on- base percentage but could mean anything without more context (lousy opposing pitching?).

Scoring 50% of the time when there are 2 outs and runners in scoring position isn't the same thing and is an unreasonable expectation.

Actually the percentage of runs scored with two outs by everyone is quite high, probably surprisingly high until you think it through. Short of the home run (which can, of course, occur with 2 outs), must runs require multiple events, a batter gets a hit, somebody else advances him, somebody else brings him home. In between those events, it's reasonable that outs will occur from time to time. Therefore, it's entirely reasonable that many runs will score as the result of a series of events which require 2 outs worth of time to happen. As noted above, scoring 50% of your runs with two outs is vastly different from cashing in on 50% of your two-out opportunities.

Yes, but what is that percentage typically? And again, scoring 50% of all runs with 2 outs is not the same as scoring 50% of the time with 2 outs and runners in scoring position.

F'rinstance, suppose Team X scored one run in a game, an it was a solo HR with 2 outs in, say, the 2nd. That's 100% of their runs in that game scored with two outs. Are you impressed with Team X's performance, or do you need more information?

A bit of Google-Fu turned up this nugget (obviously college may be slightly different):

Quote:For the majors in 2007 it looks like this:
0 outs: 4380 runs - 23.33%
1 out: 7213 runs - 38.42%
2 outs: 7182 runs - 38.25%

2006:
0 outs: 5580 runs - 23.64%
1 out: 9132 runs - 38.70%
2 outs: 8887 runs - 37.66%

(03-21-2013 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If I wasn't writing my Master's thesis right now, I would definitely tackle this.

Than again, taking breaks does help the mind work sometimes...

C'mon now, it's still only March.

(03-21-2013 04:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, but what is that percentage typically? And again, scoring 50% of all runs with 2 outs is not the same as scoring 50% of the time with 2 outs and runners in scoring position.

F'rinstance, suppose Team X scored one run in a game, an it was a solo HR with 2 outs in, say, the 2nd. That's 100% of their runs in that game scored with two outs. Are you impressed with Team X's performance, or do you need more information?

Nope. Because they've only scored one run all season, I'd imagine they're pretty poor team because at most they could've won a single game.

(03-21-2013 05:04 PM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  A bit of Google-Fu turned up this nugget (obviously college may be slightly different):

Quote:For the majors in 2007 it looks like this:
0 outs: 4380 runs - 23.33%
1 out: 7213 runs - 38.42%
2 outs: 7182 runs - 38.25%

2006:
0 outs: 5580 runs - 23.64%
1 out: 9132 runs - 38.70%
2 outs: 8887 runs - 37.66%

Thanks. My expectation was that the odds would favor the two out runs. I think this has been touched on before in other discussions, but since the RBI sacrifice is off the table with two outs, so I guess that may explain the dropoff there. Stated differently, if you excluded runs scored on sacrifice at bats, I'd expect the runup in odds to be more linear.

(03-21-2013 08:20 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-21-2013 04:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If I wasn't writing my Master's thesis right now, I would definitely tackle this.

Than again, taking breaks does help the mind work sometimes...

C'mon now, it's still only March.

(03-21-2013 04:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, but what is that percentage typically? And again, scoring 50% of all runs with 2 outs is not the same as scoring 50% of the time with 2 outs and runners in scoring position.

F'rinstance, suppose Team X scored one run in a game, an it was a solo HR with 2 outs in, say, the 2nd. That's 100% of their runs in that game scored with two outs. Are you impressed with Team X's performance, or do you need more information?

Nope. Because they've only scored one run all season, I'd imagine they're pretty poor team because at most they could've won a single game.

(03-21-2013 05:04 PM)NoodleOwl Wrote:  A bit of Google-Fu turned up this nugget (obviously college may be slightly different):

Quote:For the majors in 2007 it looks like this:
0 outs: 4380 runs - 23.33%
1 out: 7213 runs - 38.42%
2 outs: 7182 runs - 38.25%

2006:
0 outs: 5580 runs - 23.64%
1 out: 9132 runs - 38.70%
2 outs: 8887 runs - 37.66%

Thanks. My expectation was that the odds would favor the two out runs. I think this has been touched on before in other discussions, but since the RBI sacrifice is off the table with two outs, so I guess that may explain the dropoff there. Stated differently, if you excluded runs scored on sacrifice at bats, I'd expect the runup in odds to be more linear.

Well, yeah, but isn't that the point. Squeezes, sac flies, scoring on an infield ground out are all a very important part of the game; especially at the college level.

(03-21-2013 04:43 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  Yes, but what is that percentage typically? And again, scoring 50% of all runs with 2 outs is not the same as scoring 50% of the time with 2 outs and runners in scoring position.

F'rinstance, suppose Team X scored one run in a game, an it was a solo HR with 2 outs in, say, the 2nd. That's 100% of their runs in that game scored with two outs. Are you impressed with Team X's performance, or do you need more information?

Obviously, It would depend on their bunting prowess!

(sorry just couldn't resist)

edit - posted before I saw Walt's response. apologize in advance. I was posting jokingly, and entirely, at my own expense, not in response to anything Walt posted.

(03-21-2013 08:22 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Well, yeah, but isn't that the point. Squeezes, sac flies, scoring on an infield ground out are all a very important part of the game; especially at the college level.

Actually, at the MLB level at least, they're a smaller part of the game than many expect. The average MLB team last year scored 701 runs and had 41 sacrifice flies and 49 sacrifice hits (bunts), with the bunt numbers varying because of the DH--33 in the AL, 64 in the NL. Obviously every sacrifice fly leads to a run, but not every sacrifice bunt, so overall probably something like 10% of total runs scored were affected by one or both.

Agree that because there is a bigger premium on making worse defenders handle the ball, there is probably more importance at this level.

Even without having crunched all the stats, I would guess that the observation that a team has scored 50% of their runs with two outs does not suggest that the batters have more success hitting the ball when there are two outs compared to one out or zero outs.

One of the fun parts of statistics is separating out random variation from patterns that have a true underlying basis. Or, as has been suggested in this thread, figuring out the specific cause of the observed pattern. I.e., better hitting vs. more runners in scoring position.