Just an FYI-- Stanford's Austin Wilson just made his first appearance for the Cardinal since his errant throw from RF (causing an elbow injury) in the season-opener against us.

(04-05-2013 08:11 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Rice Baseball 2013 - Stay Close, Win Late

And unlikely to get you to Omaha.

(04-05-2013 08:35 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 08:11 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  Rice Baseball 2013 - Stay Close, Win Late

And unlikely to get you to Omaha.

If only 8 get to Omaha, it is unlikely that any team gets there. Rice doesn't have to get to Omaha for me to enjoy watching them play. At the beginning of the year, I would have bet a lot of money they would not make it. It seems to me that week by week, they are answering some questions I had with the team. I like the team's chances a lot more now, than I did after watching Fall Ball. I think they will get two of their early goals, win CUSA and win 40 games. After that, my crystal ball gets hazy...

(04-05-2013 07:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our 7th shutout of the season, now tying us for the national lead in that category (according to Boyd)! What a fabulous pitching performance and defensive clinic. The offense was overpowered for much of the game, but as has been the case for much of the season, they hung in there and mustered just enough at the end to pull out the victory.

Game Ball #1: Austin Kubitza (7.1 IP, 4 singles, 0 runs, 3 BBs, 10 Ks)-- this is his third or fourth game this year locked in a 0-0 game through the first 6 innings. Threw a lot of pitches and frequently fell behind in the count, but his fastball was moving and his slider was as nasty as ever.

Game Ball #3: Zech Lemond (W, 3-1, 1.2 IP, 1 jit, 0 runs, 0 BBs, 4 Ks)-- I've lost track, but this was his 5th or 6th consecutive lock-down, lights out appearance. Just what the doctor ordered.

Game Ball #3: Could have given it to Ford Stainback (2-4, 1 run) or Geoff Perrott (2-4, 1 run, threw out a runner, and handled the pitching staff) or even Leon Byrd (who took an 0fer at the plate with 3 Ks, but very likely saved the game with his web gem catch in the 7th inning, with two runners on and one out)...but I'm giving it to Christian Stringer (2-4, run) for two leadoff singles, and scoring the game-winning run.

HUGE win to start the weekend on the road; especially with the Coogs losing to Marshall. We're now tied atop the conference standings at 5-2....and the road warriors are now 9-3 on the road. Let's win tomorrow and clinch our seventh consecutive weekend series win this year (without a loss). Go Owls!

Clutch play by Cook to put the big infield chopper in play with the infield in. Big hit when it counted.

(04-05-2013 08:48 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 07:38 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Our 7th shutout of the season, now tying us for the national lead in that category (according to Boyd)! What a fabulous pitching performance and defensive clinic. The offense was overpowered for much of the game, but as has been the case for much of the season, they hung in there and mustered just enough at the end to pull out the victory.

Game Ball #1: Austin Kubitza (7.1 IP, 4 singles, 0 runs, 3 BBs, 10 Ks)-- this is his third or fourth game this year locked in a 0-0 game through the first 6 innings. Threw a lot of pitches and frequently fell behind in the count, but his fastball was moving and his slider was as nasty as ever.

Game Ball #3: Zech Lemond (W, 3-1, 1.2 IP, 1 jit, 0 runs, 0 BBs, 4 Ks)-- I've lost track, but this was his 5th or 6th consecutive lock-down, lights out appearance. Just what the doctor ordered.

Game Ball #3: Could have given it to Ford Stainback (2-4, 1 run) or Geoff Perrott (2-4, 1 run, threw out a runner, and handled the pitching staff) or even Leon Byrd (who took an 0fer at the plate with 3 Ks, but very likely saved the game with his web gem catch in the 7th inning, with two runners on and one out)...but I'm giving it to Christian Stringer (2-4, run) for two leadoff singles, and scoring the game-winning run.

HUGE win to start the weekend on the road; especially with the Coogs losing to Marshall. We're now tied atop the conference standings at 5-2....and the road warriors are now 9-3 on the road. Let's win tomorrow and clinch our seventh consecutive weekend series win this year (without a loss). Go Owls!

Clutch play by Cook to put the big infield chopper in play with the infield in. Big hit when it counted.

Oh, absolutely...and with two strikes on him. He HAD to find a way to put the ball in play, and he did just that. Well executed bunt by Aquino, as well. Just a series of 5 - 6 consecutive quality ABs that inning...after being shut down easily the previous 8 innings.

(04-05-2013 07:20 PM)elf owl Wrote:  Not that I don't enjoy JP. He sprinkles clues to the past events all throughout the broadcast so the inveterate puzzle solver within us all can laboriously piece together the chain of events not described in real time but referred to sufficiently that a pattern emerges and suddenly we realize what might have happened. This is far more exciting than boring play-by-play the old fashioned way. This is a more surreal approach which calls for maximum participation of the audience to complete the picture of the action. Stimulating, not confusing.

+1

Amazingly driving from Longview to Houston, had JP almost all the way. Game over arriving at Greenway Plaza. Ain't technology wonderful (when it works).

We're going against their best pitcher, statistic-wise, today in RS Fr RHP David Lucroy (6 starts, 34.1 IP, 3-1, 2.10 ERA, .179, 18 BBs, 8 HBP, 39 Ks). He's their lone pitcher averaging better than a strikeout per inning pitched, but he's also struggled a bit with his control. Those 8 HBPs would indicate he likes to work the inside part of the plate.

Surprisingly, ECU is going back to their usual Saturday starter, JUCO transfer RHP Ryan Williams, tomorrow (Sunday morning), despite throwing 7.0 innings and 100 pitches Tuesday night against NC State. That's just a little more than 4 days rest. Shows how little depth the Pirates have on the mound beyond their top 3 starters and 2 relievers. He's a soft-tosser, but I question how deep into the game he'll be able to go.

BTW, how the heck did the official scoring rule all 3 Rice runs in the 9th inning unearned? We had runners on 2B and 3B, one out (after back-to-back singles and a sac bunt). Yes, there was a two-run error on the Cook swinging bunt, BUT...the first run should have been an RBI on a fielders choice (coming home with the throw, rather than going to 1B). Also, given that Perrott then followed with a single and Ratterree with a double, wouldn't that mean that at least two of three runs scored were earned?

I'm confused.

(04-06-2013 09:38 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  BTW, how the heck did the official scoring rule all 3 Rice runs in the 9th inning unearned? We had runners on 2B and 3B, one out (after back-to-back singles and a sac bunt). Yes, there was a two-run error on the Cook swinging bunt, BUT...the first run should have been an RBI on a fielders choice (coming home with the throw, rather than going to 1B). Also, given that Perrott then followed with a single and Ratterree with a double, wouldn't that mean that at least two of three runs scored were earned?

I'm confused.

I think you have it right. not sure if college baseball ever revisits these after the fact, like MLB might do.

It seems to me 1 of the runs should have been earned.

With 1 out, Stainback on 3rd and Stringer on 2nd, Cook hits swinging bunt to 2nd. 2nd baseman throws home to get Stainback - throw is wild allowing Stainback and Stringer to score. Stainback's run is unearned (a good throw would have gotten him at home - according to the judgement of the official scorer) and Stringer's run is (temporarily) unearned on the wild throw. Should be two outs. Perrott's single would have scored Stringer from 3rd (assuming no error) so Stringer's run becomes (retroactively) earned. But Cook was thrown out at 3rd on the play which should have been the 3rd out of the inning. So everything that happens after that play is unearned (the inning should have been over). So Ratterree's run scoring double scoring Perrott is an unearned run.

(04-06-2013 10:21 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  I think you have it right. not sure if college baseball ever revisits these after the fact, like MLB might do.

It's generally only revisited if the change benefits home team stats, as the official scorer is a home team guy. The only thing this change would do is raise the pitcher's ERA.

(04-06-2013 11:08 AM)CoatzaOwl Wrote:  It seems to me 1 of the runs should have been earned.

With 1 out, Stainback on 3rd and Stringer on 2nd, Cook hits swinging bunt to 2nd. 2nd baseman throws home to get Stainback - throw is wild allowing Stainback and Stringer to score. Stainback's run is unearned (a good throw would have gotten him at home - according to the judgement of the official scorer) and Stringer's run is (temporarily) unearned on the wild throw. Should be two outs. Perrott's single would have scored Stringer from 3rd (assuming no error) so Stringer's run becomes (retroactively) earned. But Cook was thrown out at 3rd on the play which should have been the 3rd out of the inning. So everything that happens after that play is unearned (the inning should have been over). So Ratterree's run scoring double scoring Perrott is an unearned run.

That's not my understanding how the scorekeeping works. You cannot presume that they would have had the runner at home plate; especially on a play that is not a force out and requires a tag. Consequently, that should have been ruled a fielders choice (just the same as when an infielder tries to get the force out and fails to do so), with Cook getting an RBI. The second run should have been initially ruled unearned, but then changed after the single by Perrott. The final run on Rat's RBI double was clearly unearned.

(04-06-2013 11:08 AM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 10:21 AM)MemOwl Wrote:  I think you have it right. not sure if college baseball ever revisits these after the fact, like MLB might do.

It's generally only revisited if the change benefits home team stats, as the official scorer is a home team guy. The only thing this change would do is raise the pitcher's ERA.

And give Cook a well-deserved RBI.

(04-06-2013 11:23 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  That's not my understanding how the scorekeeping works. You cannot presume that they would have had the runner at home plate; especially on a play that is not a force out and requires a tag. Consequently, that should have been ruled a fielders choice (just the same as when an infielder tries to get the force out and fails to do so), with Cook getting an RBI.

I believe it's to the scorer's discretion. If, in the scorekeeper's opinion, an average (or some such language) play (in this case throw and tag) would have gotten the runner at home, then the run is unearned. The fielder's choice gets Cook to 1st and the play at the plate can still be judged an error resulting in an unearned run.

(04-06-2013 11:56 AM)CoatzaOwl Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 11:23 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  That's not my understanding how the scorekeeping works. You cannot presume that they would have had the runner at home plate; especially on a play that is not a force out and requires a tag. Consequently, that should have been ruled a fielders choice (just the same as when an infielder tries to get the force out and fails to do so), with Cook getting an RBI.

I believe it's to the scorer's discretion. If, in the scorekeeper's opinion, an average (or some such language) play (in this case throw and tag) would have gotten the runner at home, then the run is unearned. The fielder's choice gets Cook to 1st and the play at the plate can still be judged an error resulting in an unearned run.

For what it's worth, the language is "ordinary effort". So if the scorer thinks the play could have been made with ordinary effort, then the run is unearned.