2018 ACC Baseball

[65Jacket]

I presume the team that goes to the ACC Tourney will be the losers who wear our road uniforms. They will go two and out, or one and out. If the winners, who play our home games go, they will do well in the tourney.

 

[FredJacket]

To be honest, this team does not deserve an NCAA bid the way they have played. I am sure Hall will complain, but he really has no room to do so.

As of right now... you are probably correct. What results would it take for you to change that view? Is there anything they could do before season's end for you to feel they deserve a bid?

 

[RoosterJacket]

Team: Home ACC record (home series wins/losses); Road ACC record (road series wins/losses)
UNC: 10-2(3/4); 8-4(3/4)
CLEM: 7-5(2/4); 10-2(4/4)
DUKE: 8-4(3/4); 7-4(3/4)
NCST: 6-6(3/4); 9-3(4/4)
FSU: 6-5(3/4); 7-5(2/4)
LOU: 5-7(1/4); 5-4(1/3)
PITT: 5-4(2/3); 5-7(2/4)
MIA: 7-5(2/4); 4-8(1/4)
WF: 6-6(3/4); 5-7(1/4)
GT: 9-3(4/4); 2-10(0/4)
ND: 7-5(3/4); 3-9(0/4)
UVA: 5-7(2/4); 4-8(1/4)
VT: 4-8(1/4); 4-8(0/4)
BC: 3-9(1/4); 3-9(0/4)

Yikes, so we are the only team in the ACC to have double digit losses on the road in conference...

 

[FredJacket]

Yikes, so we are the only team in the ACC to have double digit losses on the road in conference...

So it would seem, heh? ...assuming I didn't make an error in my stuff (you get what you pay for).

I looked at it closer (and to emphasize the issue even more)... Ga Tech home ACC winning percentage (.750) is 2nd to only UNC (.833). Our road ACC winning percentage (.167) is LAST in the ACC. Just defies statistical logic (an industry term)... even when factoring in our "difficult" road schedule (Clem, NCSt, UNC, Pitt).

 

[Lagrangejacket]

As of right now... you are probably correct. What results would it take for you to change that view? Is there anything they could do before season's end for you to feel they deserve a bid?

Not the person you asked, but I think it's instructive to look at some past years. Here are some resumes from the past few years in the ACC. Which ones do you think get in?

Team 1: 32-23 (13-17), 6-13 vs top 50, RPI 38
Team 2: 34-24 (13-16), 9-15 vs top 50, RPI 28
Team 3: 36-23 (13-16), 15-22 vs top 50, RPI 20
Team 4: 34-21 (13-17), 14-16 vs top 50, RPI 18
Team 5: 31-25 (14-16), 8-14 vs top 50, RPI 52


Team 1 is 2015 GT; they were OUT.
Team 2 is 2015 UNC; they were OUT.
Team 3 is 2016 GT; they were IN (with the help of an AD on the committee).
Team 4 is 2016 UNC; they were OUT.
Team 5 is GT's predicted finish this year, not including any ACCT results.

Remember, too, that the ACC was much stronger those years than this one.

So to get in the tournament, I think we virtually need to win out. To be in the top 45 RPI (still a very low number), we have to go 7-4 or 8-3. To be in the top 32, we have to go 10-1 or better. So to deserve getting in, I think we have to win the ACC tournament, or perhaps go 11-2 in the rest of the season (including ACCT). Even that last scenario puts us squarely on the bubble.

 

[FredJacket]

Not the person you asked, but I think it's instructive to look at some past years. Here are some resumes from the past few years in the ACC. Which ones do you think get in?

Team 1: 32-23 (13-17), 6-13 vs top 50, RPI 38
Team 2: 34-24 (13-16), 9-15 vs top 50, RPI 28
Team 3: 36-23 (13-16), 15-22 vs top 50, RPI 20
Team 4: 34-21 (13-17), 14-16 vs top 50, RPI 18
Team 5: 31-25 (14-16), 8-14 vs top 50, RPI 52


Team 1 is 2015 GT; they were OUT.
Team 2 is 2015 UNC; they were OUT.
Team 3 is 2016 GT; they were IN (with the help of an AD on the committee).
Team 4 is 2016 UNC; they were OUT.
Team 5 is GT's predicted finish this year, not including any ACCT results.

Remember, too, that the ACC was much stronger those years than this one.

So to get in the tournament, I think we virtually need to win out. To be in the top 45 RPI (still a very low number), we have to go 7-4 or 8-3. To be in the top 32, we have to go 10-1 or better. So to deserve getting in, I think we have to win the ACC tournament, or perhaps go 11-2 in the rest of the season (including ACCT). Even that last scenario puts us squarely on the bubble.

Excellent post! Thank you. I was sort of "aware" of most of that; but nice to see it with the RPI info tied in. Yep... you put a fine point on what I(we?) seem to all be thinking. The path is pretty narrow.

Most interesting of all that is UNC in 2016. The ACC made a conscious , deliberate change to ACC tournament after 2016 (and UNC's snub). That year UNC was a #18 RPI team that failed to make the ACC tournament. That's when the ACC decided to expand the 2017 (and beyond) tournament field to 12 teams (from 10) and changed the format too.

 

[MWBATL]

Not the person you asked, but I think it's instructive to look at some past years. Here are some resumes from the past few years in the ACC. Which ones do you think get in?

Team 1: 32-23 (13-17), 6-13 vs top 50, RPI 38
Team 2: 34-24 (13-16), 9-15 vs top 50, RPI 28
Team 3: 36-23 (13-16), 15-22 vs top 50, RPI 20
Team 4: 34-21 (13-17), 14-16 vs top 50, RPI 18
Team 5: 31-25 (14-16), 8-14 vs top 50, RPI 52


Team 1 is 2015 GT; they were OUT.
Team 2 is 2015 UNC; they were OUT.
Team 3 is 2016 GT; they were IN (with the help of an AD on the committee).
Team 4 is 2016 UNC; they were OUT.
Team 5 is GT's predicted finish this year, not including any ACCT results.

Remember, too, that the ACC was much stronger those years than this one.

So to get in the tournament, I think we virtually need to win out. To be in the top 45 RPI (still a very low number), we have to go 7-4 or 8-3. To be in the top 32, we have to go 10-1 or better. So to deserve getting in, I think we have to win the ACC tournament, or perhaps go 11-2 in the rest of the season (including ACCT). Even that last scenario puts us squarely on the bubble.

Great post and I concur with your thinking. We really sank our boat with the disaster at Pitt (#94 RPI) and losing games at home vs Georgia State and Wake Forest. And before anyone tries to tell me that Wake Forest is good, their RPI (according to Warren Nolan) is #77. To put that in perspective, Georgia Southern is at #72 (better than WF) and Kennesaw State is #86 and Georgia State is #93. Even Miami (FL) is only #71. Our only really great series was the FSU series. Other than that, we have looked like a very mediocre program. The games vs UGa have also proven that.

It will take a dramatic turnaround of proportions we simply have not seen yet with this team.

 

[Lagrangejacket]

Excellent post! Thank you. I was sort of "aware" of most of that; but nice to see it with the RPI info tied in. Yep... you put a fine point on what I(we?) seem to all be thinking. The path is pretty narrow.

Most interesting of all that is UNC in 2016. The ACC made a conscious , deliberate change to ACC tournament after 2016 (and UNC's snub). That year UNC was a #18 RPI team that failed to make the ACC tournament. That's when the ACC decided to expand the 2017 (and beyond) tournament field to 12 teams (from 10) and changed the format too.

The RPI is also such a cruel creature. You probably know this, but it a win on the road as 1.3 wins, and a win at home as 0.7 wins. Dropping the series finale to Wake cost us over 10 spots in the RPI. But conversely, turning a couple of those road losses against high RPI teams (UNC, Clemson, NCSt) into road wins would have our RPI probably 20 spots higher than where we are now, and in much better position for the postseason.

It's also why I think game management is a big deal - there are often a few plays in a few games that are magnified in stats like the RPI. Take game 2 of the UNC series - Mike Fox pinch hit a guy in the 8th who ended up hitting a grand slam. We sacrificed in the top of the 10th and ended up scoring 2 runs, but that out turned out to be costly since UNC scored 3 in the bottom of the inning. Putting Hughes out there in the 10th also turned out poorly. In the 1-run loss to Clemson, we sacrificed 2 of our final 6 outs.

Were those the right moves at the time? Maybe, maybe not - I'm not here to rehash the merits of the sacrifice bunt. But what's certain is turning those two 1-run Ls to Ws would be a 4-game swing in the ACC standings (13-11 vs 11-13), worth about 25 spots in the RPI, and would have us on the right side of the bubble. It's also why I can't stand the "we'll be better next year regardless of the coaching" comments. If you're blowing out people 10-2, game management might be overrated. If you're in our situation, it's not.

 

[MWBATL]

The RPI is also such a cruel creature. You probably know this, but it a win on the road as 1.3 wins, and a win at home as 0.7 wins. Dropping the series finale to Wake cost us over 10 spots in the RPI. But conversely, turning a couple of those road losses against high RPI teams (UNC, Clemson, NCSt) into road wins would have our RPI probably 20 spots higher than where we are now, and in much better position for the postseason.

It's also why I think game management is a big deal - there are often a few plays in a few games that are magnified in stats like the RPI. Take game 2 of the UNC series - Mike Fox pinch hit a guy in the 8th who ended up hitting a grand slam. We sacrificed in the top of the 10th and ended up scoring 2 runs, but that out turned out to be costly since UNC scored 3 in the bottom of the inning. Putting Hughes out there in the 10th also turned out poorly. In the 1-run loss to Clemson, we sacrificed 2 of our final 6 outs.

Were those the right moves at the time? Maybe, maybe not - I'm not here to rehash the merits of the sacrifice bunt. But what's certain is turning those two 1-run Ls to Ws would be a 4-game swing in the ACC standings (13-11 vs 11-13), worth about 25 spots in the RPI, and would have us on the right side of the bubble. It's also why I can't stand the "we'll be better next year regardless of the coaching" comments. If you're blowing out people 10-2, game management might be overrated. If you're in our situation, it's not.

Don't forget the collapse against N C State, where we want to the bullpen too early (imho, English was pulled after 72 pitches) and blew a 5-3 lead in the bottom of the 8th inning.

 

[RoosterJacket]

 

[MikeJackets1967]

 

[FredJacket]

Week 9 (of 11) of ACC play is the lightest of the season.

These teams are taking weekend off: Duke, UNC, UVA, VT, and WF.
These teams play out of conference: GT, MIA, NCST

Then there are these games that matter (to Ga Tech):

PITT(10-11) @ ND(10-14) - This is ND's 9th ACC series (off next weekend). No outcome keeps (or puts) Ga Tech ahead of BOTH of these teams in standings. Pitt wins one (or more) and they remain ahead of GT. ND sweeps and they pass GT.

LOU(10-11) @ BC(6-18) - May as well "pull" for Louisville to stay close in standings (i.e. BC to win)... but it still seems obvious Louisville will finish above .500 in the ACC. They had a nice quality mid-week win over Vandy last night.

FSU(13-10) @ CLEM(17-7) - Should be a good series. Not very consequential to Ga Tech's situation.

 

[RoosterJacket]

As was mentioned, not a lot of ACC matchups this weekend. Here are yesterday’s outcomes in the ACC matchups and the updates standings. Also as @FredJacket mentioned, after the series between Pitt/ND, one of them will be ahead of us regardless.

Louisville 6 BC 1
ND 7 Pitt 4
Clem-FSU series starts today

1) UNC 18-6
2) Clem 17-7
3) Duke 15-8
4) NCST 15-9
5) FSU 13-10
6) UL 11-11
7) GT 11-13 (tiebreaker over WF & MIA)
8) WF 11-13
8) MIA 11-13
10) Pitt 10-12
11) ND 11-14
12) UVA 9-15
————— Bottom 2 don’t make ACCT
VT 8-16
BC 6-19

 

[RoosterJacket]

Saturday's games (5/5)
Louisville 11 BC 3
ND 7 Pitt 5
FSU 3 Clem 2 (13)

1) UNC 18-6
2) Clem 17-8
3) Duke 15-8
4) NCST 15-9
5) FSU 14-10
6) UL 12-11
7) ND 12-14
8) GT 11-13 (tiebreaker over WF & MIA)
9) WF 11-13
9) MIA 11-13
11) Pitt 10-13
12) UVA 9-15
————— Bottom 2 don’t make ACCT
VT 8-16
BC 6-20

 

[FredJacket]

Ok.. I'm back into predicting/projecting ACC standings with 2 weekend remaining.

I think the top 6 are nearly a lock... the order is still in flux. Here is how I think Top 6 will shake out…

#1) UNC (18-6) - Predicting 22-8. Remaining series (@ Duke & VT).

#2) CLEM (19-8) - Predicting 21-9. Remaining series (@ Pitt).

#3) NCST (15-9) - Predicting 19-11. Remaining series (WF & @ FSU).

#4 DUKE (15-8) - Predicting 17-12. Remaining series (UNC & @ GT)

#5) LOU (12-12) - Predicting 16-14. Remaining series (@ Pitt & ND). I’m still saying Louisville will finish no lower than 6th place given that is their current spot & their remaining conference schedule.

#6) FSU (14-12) - Predicting 15-14. Remaining series (NCST). I’ll assume they win at least one of those assuring them a better than .500 ACC record.

That leaves #7-#14.... 5 of these teams have 11 or 12 wins right now... very muddled.

#7) MIA (11-13) – Predicting 15-15. Remaining series (@ VT & BC). Miami has looked much like GT this year. Some ‘bad’ losses and some surprising series wins… so, who knows? But seems 4-2 over those 6 games is reasonable for them.

#8) GT (11-13) – Predicting 14-16. Remaining series (@ UVA & Duke). So hard to even guess what’ll happen. 4-2 would be great…and frankly, a little surprising. 3-3 is probably more realistic. Breaking news… worse than that is possible. [HOPE I am wrong and it is a “surprising” 4-2 or better]

#9) WF (11-13) – Predicting 14-16 (just because GT gets to "feel so good" about the tiebreaker over WF… THEN find themselves in #1 overall seed’s pool while WF ends up in pool with #4 and #5). Remaining series (@ NCST & UVA). Probably 2 or 3 wins in there.

#10) ND (12-15) – Predicting 13-17 (ND holds tiebreaker over Pitt). Remaining series (@ LOU). ND “maybe” wins 1 more.

#11) Pitt (11-13) – Predicting 13-17. Remaining series (LOU & CLEM). All remaining games at home… but Louisville and Clemson are pretty hot right now.

#12) UVA (9-15) – Predicting 12-18. Remaining series (GT & @ WF). Still hard to believe UVA is this bad.

VT and BC miss the tournament.

If the above happens, the tournament pools will look this way:
UNC, GT, UVA
CLEM, MIA, PITT
NCST, FSU, ND
DUKE, LOU, WF

 

[bensaysitathome]

If the above happens, the tournament pools will look this way:
UNC, GT, UVA
CLEM, MIA, PITT
NCST, FSU, ND
DUKE, LOU, WF

I'll never advocate losing games in the interest of tournament seeding. But because we'd have to win both games to advance, that 4/5/9 pod looks much more appealing than the 1/8/12.

 

[MWBATL]

Honestly, I don't think any of it matters much.

 

[FredJacket]

Honestly, I don't think any of it matters much.

Are you saying "it" only matters if Ga Tech wins the ACCT? What is "it"? and why doesn't it matter? You'd have to agree that for many folks each game matters for a lot of different reasons...until the last pitch of the last game every season, right?

 

[MWBATL]

Are you saying "it" only matters if Ga Tech wins the ACCT? What is "it"? and why doesn't it matter? You'd have to agree that for many folks each game matters for a lot of different reasons...until the last pitch of the last game every season, right?

You're right. Apologies, I let my pessimism out for a while there.....

 

[FredJacket]

You're right. Apologies, I let my pessimism out for a while there.....

Well... for the record, I really am interested in yours (and other's) state of mind...whether temporary or permanent. I did not have a problem with what you wrote; but was it 'incomplete' and intrigued me. I sensed frustration (obviously)... but wondered exactly what that frustration meant for you? This team is like that annoying friend that usually generously buys all (or most) of the beer when you're together. You really have to hold back punching him in the face or just walking away and looking for other things to do... but that free beer sure is tasty and hits the spot sometimes. ...and maybe he'll be less annoying "this time".