@Stanford Baseball (Poll)

[gtbeak]

Not sure what you're saying? Are you pointing out that he had earned it before this weekend but TBD was still utilized? I think that there wasn't a point of letting the other team know who to prep for is why he probably knew Thursday, but TBD got the pub instead. You can't really play that card as much this weekend since Sunday is on record.

Several people have commented on various threads about consistently stacking Tate/Mason and Paden/Riley. I was talking to those people.

Lighten up. Take a breathe. Relax. This is a message board. I was only joking - I don't have any cards to play. It isn't all that serious. On that note, here's my reverse card.

My apologies on #3. You'll note I did delete it before the 20 minute time limit as I agree it came across stronger than I intended. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people (not you to this point) come around to crow when they are right, but when wrong either ignore the fact, or worse, switch sides of the debate and try to act like they were always on the correct side.

On Spivey, no, I'm not saying he earned it before this past weekend. I'm saying I still believe that the Sunday start at Stanford was truly TBD and the decision to use Spivey was based on how the first 2 games played out.

 

[DecaturJacket]

My apologies on #3. You'll note I did delete it before the 20 minute time limit as I agree it came across stronger than I intended. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people (not you to this point) come around to crow when they are right, but when wrong either ignore the fact, or worse, switch sides of the debate and try to act like they were always on the correct side.

On Spivey, no, I'm not saying he earned it before this past weekend. I'm saying I still believe that the Sunday start at Stanford was truly TBD and the decision to use Spivey was based on how the first 2 games played out.

No worries. I try not to be that person. I'm too stubborn to switch sides, but I do love (jokingly) boasting. I do try to own my L's too.

I don't think anybody ever said our pitching was bad, just a bunch of folks afraid to get on board with the improvement we were seeing early. The success we're seeing definitely is a results of the changes we've seen since the beginning of the season and why I was so confident is the staff as a whole (despite my disagreement about how long the leash was on the Sunday role and who should be used where).

Fair enough on Spivey. You may be right, but I just think based on what I know about Taylor (time at State + Braves) I'd think he'd be more a traditional set role guy (as am I clearly). Who knows though, he really could be a go with the flow guy or be trying something new out until it fails.

 

[gtbeak]

No worries. I try not to be that person. I'm too stubborn to switch sides, but I do love (jokingly) boasting. I do try to own my L's too.

I don't think anybody ever said our pitching was bad, just a bunch of folks afraid to get on board with the improvement we were seeing early. The success we're seeing definitely is a results of the changes we've seen since the beginning of the season and why I was so confident is the staff as a whole (despite my disagreement about how long the leash was on the Sunday role and who should be used where).

Fair enough on Spivey. You may be right, but I just think based on what I know about Taylor (time at State + Braves) I'd think he'd be more a traditional set role guy (as am I clearly). Who knows though, he really could be a go with the flow guy or be trying something new out until it fails.

I was definitely in the "afraid to get on board" camp.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I was definitely in the "afraid to get on board" camp.

I like to call it the rational camp based on over a decade of experience.

 

[GT33]

We know a couple of things- they made some pretty damn good calls on what to do this weekend; our team ERA is low compared to the rest of the ACC; we keep winning.

I wouldn’t let some pitchers go as long as they did, but if you’re managing the whole season instead of arm chair QB’ing a game (or part of a game within a game) you probably don’t do what I’d prefer them to do. Maybe you see what happens when you push them past where you should have given them the hook?

 

[senoiajacket]

I was definitely in the "afraid to get on board" camp.

Yep, me too. Now that I am (starting ) to get on board I am going to break Nuke’s most excellent rule of “just win the next one” and get wayyyyyy ahead of myself, and start to wonder if our starters are good enough to win a regional? How about a super regional? I don’t watch enough other college teams to know how our staff stacks up to the top 8, 10 or 12 in the country. What I do feel confident in is that our offense can compete with anyone and that kind of offense makes average pitching “good enough” and good pitching really hard to beat!!

 

[gtbeak]

Yep, me too. Now that I am (starting ) to get on board I am going to break Nuke’s most excellent rule of “just win the next one” and get wayyyyyy ahead of myself, and start to wonder if our starters are good enough to win a regional? How about a super regional? I don’t watch enough other college teams to know how our staff stacks up to the top 8, 10 or 12 in the country. What I do feel confident in is that our offense can compete with anyone and that kind of offense makes average pitching “good enough” and good pitching really hard to beat!!

I think the one thing that does worry me is that we have a few pitchers who have an extremely high strand rate. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but (at least at the MLB level) that is generally considered to be mostly a function of luck. Some examples (just ACC play):

Brady Jones has allowed 38 baserunners and only 9 have scored
Jaylen Paden has allowed 20 baserunners and only 2 have scored
Caden Spivey has allowed 18 baserunners and only 1 has scored

One big reason they have been able to strand these runners is that they aren't allowing homeruns. None of those three has allowed a ball to leave the yard. That's great if they can keep it up, but it certainly bears watching.

By comparison, Riley Stanford has allowed 23 baserunners and 12 of them have scored. He has been prone to allowing the homerun in ACC play (4 in 11 innings).
Tate McKee has allowed 34 baserunners and 17 have scored. He's allowed 3 homeruns in 24 innings, which is respectable, but clearly higher than zero.
Mason Patel has allowed 24 baserunners and 8 have scored. In the majors that's pretty close to a typical number. He's allowed 3 homers in 23 innings.

 

[senoiajacket]

I think the one thing that does worry me is that we have a few pitchers who have an extremely high strand rate. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but (at least at the MLB level) that is generally considered to be mostly a function of luck. Some examples (just ACC play):

Brady Jones has allowed 38 baserunners and only 9 have scored
Jaylen Paden has allowed 20 baserunners and only 2 have scored
Caden Spivey has allowed 18 baserunners and only 1 has scored

One big reason they have been able to strand these runners is that they aren't allowing homeruns. None of those three has allowed a ball to leave the yard. That's great if they can keep it up, but it certainly bears watching.

By comparison, Riley Stanford has allowed 23 baserunners and 12 of them have scored. He has been prone to allowing the homerun in ACC play (4 in 11 innings).
Tate McKee has allowed 34 baserunners and 17 have scored. He's allowed 3 homeruns in 24 innings, which is respectable, but clearly higher than zero.
Mason Patel has allowed 24 baserunners and 8 have scored. In the majors that's pretty close to a typical number. He's allowed 3 homers in 23 innings.

Very interesting stats. Hopefully that’s not a “mean reverting” stat. Any stats or idea what the ACC overall strand rate is?

Another thing tied to that stat that is worrisome is that the deeper you go in post season the better the hitters, therefore, the more likely someone is to launch one with people on base.

Oh well, let’s just win the next one!

 

[gtbeak]

Very interesting stats. Hopefully that’s not a “mean reverting” stat. Any stats or idea what the ACC overall strand rate is?

Another thing tied to that stat that is worrisome is that the deeper you go in post season the better the hitters, therefore, the more likely someone is to launch one with people on base.

Oh well, let’s just win the next one!

I don't know what the expectation is at the college level. At the major league level it is a "mean reverting" stat except in some rare occasions. That's why I say it's usually considered a sign of luck when a pitcher has a high number. Extreme ground ball pitchers usually have a higher strand rate since they get DPs and avoid homeruns. Reynaldo Lopez of the Braves last season had a really high strand rate (around 80%), and that is one reason many expected him to "come back to earth" this year even before he came down with the injured shoulder. On the flip side, Spencer Schwellenbach had a low strand rate (64%), so it would stand to reason he has room to be even better this year even before considering any year-over-year improvements that would be expected of a pitcher after their first season.

TL;DR, strand rate is a metric you can look at for major leaguers to consider if their performance (good or bad) is likely to continue, or if regression should be expected. I assume it would be true for college pitchers also, but I can't say for certain.

 

[Bogey]

This team is doing a great job about mitigating my doubts after the last several seasons. This year could be special.
What is the story on Coupet? I saw him swing on s strike and thought what a hitter he should be. A few pitches later he banged his grand slammer. Can he hit nighties also? Why isn't he DHing?

 

[DecaturJacket]

This team is doing a great job about mitigating my doubts after the last several seasons. This year could be special.
What is the story on Coupet? I saw him swing on s strike and thought what a hitter he should be. A few pitches later he banged his grand slammer. Can he hit nighties also? Why isn't he DHing?

He's a sophomore who got no AB's last season and only has 4 this season, so hard to say. He's gotten in on defense late in games several times this season. Seems like the coaches just have him penciled in as a backup this season. I don't see any of our outfielders moving on after this season, as only Brosius will even be eligible, so not sure what the future for Coupet is. Not sure he fits the role of DH, but who knows. Keep hitting when you get the chance and they'll have to find a place for you.

 

[Bogey]

He's a sophomore who got no AB's last season and only has 4 this season, so hard to say. He's gotten in on defense late in games several times this season. Seems like the coaches just have him penciled in as a backup this season. I don't see any of our outfielders moving on after this season, as only Brosius will even be eligible, so not sure what the future for Coupet is. Not sure he fits the role of DH, but who knows. Keep hitting when you get the chance and they'll have to find a place for you.

I think he is a natural hitter and will continue to show out imho.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I don't know what the expectation is at the college level. At the major league level it is a "mean reverting" stat except in some rare occasions. That's why I say it's usually considered a sign of luck when a pitcher has a high number. Extreme ground ball pitchers usually have a higher strand rate since they get DPs and avoid homeruns. Reynaldo Lopez of the Braves last season had a really high strand rate (around 80%), and that is one reason many expected him to "come back to earth" this year even before he came down with the injured shoulder. On the flip side, Spencer Schwellenbach had a low strand rate (64%), so it would stand to reason he has room to be even better this year even before considering any year-over-year improvements that would be expected of a pitcher after their first season.

TL;DR, strand rate is a metric you can look at for major leaguers to consider if their performance (good or bad) is likely to continue, or if regression should be expected. I assume it would be true for college pitchers also, but I can't say for certain.

Agree. Here are the MLB stats. There is little reason to expect college to be much different. Our Maxwell Moment was the exception where the dude had a high WHIP and managed to pull multiple rabbits feet out of his posterior. He was the exception we noted at the time.

Like you point out, HRs kill the ERA when those pitchers have a high WHIP. Good defense can help avoid runs from a high WHIP; currently we have a statistically average defense. Also a team that steals effectively will increase the ERA they extract from a high WHIP player.

I expect when we play better teams, the higher WHIP will bite us a lot more. That's why they are better teams. Clemson lets other teams make mistakes and takes advantage. So do we and make it rain runs.

 

[78pike]

I think the one thing that does worry me is that we have a few pitchers who have an extremely high strand rate. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but (at least at the MLB level) that is generally considered to be mostly a function of luck. Some examples (just ACC play):

Brady Jones has allowed 38 baserunners and only 9 have scored
Jaylen Paden has allowed 20 baserunners and only 2 have scored
Caden Spivey has allowed 18 baserunners and only 1 has scored

One big reason they have been able to strand these runners is that they aren't allowing homeruns. None of those three has allowed a ball to leave the yard. That's great if they can keep it up, but it certainly bears watching.

By comparison, Riley Stanford has allowed 23 baserunners and 12 of them have scored. He has been prone to allowing the homerun in ACC play (4 in 11 innings).
Tate McKee has allowed 34 baserunners and 17 have scored. He's allowed 3 homeruns in 24 innings, which is respectable, but clearly higher than zero.
Mason Patel has allowed 24 baserunners and 8 have scored. In the majors that's pretty close to a typical number. He's allowed 3 homers in 23 innings.

Regarding the first three pitchers you listed, having seen all the games those guys appear to be laser focused when runners get on base. They also all have pretty good stuff and in the case of Jones of late, that stuff has been getting a lot of weak contact.

As far as the whole staff this year, for the most part we have been able to avoid big innings by the other teams while putting up a lot of crooked numbers ourselves. A lot of that is due, as beak pointed out, to not giving up a lot of homers and the ones we do give up are solo shots a lot of the time. The underlying theme is that Taylor has the guys being aggressive and throwing strikes forcing the other team to beat us instead of us beatng ourselves like we have done so often in the past.

 

[gtbeak]

I expect when we play better teams, the higher WHIP will bite us a lot more. That's why they are better teams. Clemson lets other teams make mistakes and takes advantage. So do we and make it rain runs.

Note that we don't have a high WHIP...I hope that wasn't the takeaway from what I wrote. I think we are top 40 in the country in lowest WHIP. Comparing to other recent Tech pitching staffs the WHIP is almost 0.5 better than any of the last 3 seasons, 0.2 better than 2021, and basically the same as the 2019 staff that had 4 future big leaguers on it.

 

[stinger78]

FWIW, I consider WHIP and BABIP two of the most insightful descriptive stats that add context to high-level averages like ERA and BA.

For example, a high WHIP can add a cautionary note relative to optimism about a low ERA. Similarly, a low BABIP can add an optimistic note relative to a low BA.

There are a couple of ratios that do as well such as K:BB, GO:FO, etc. I also find barrel rate a good metric as well.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

I don't know what the expectation is at the college level. At the major league level it is a "mean reverting" stat except in some rare occasions. That's why I say it's usually considered a sign of luck when a pitcher has a high number. Extreme ground ball pitchers usually have a higher strand rate since they get DPs and avoid homeruns. Reynaldo Lopez of the Braves last season had a really high strand rate (around 80%), and that is one reason many expected him to "come back to earth" this year even before he came down with the injured shoulder. On the flip side, Spencer Schwellenbach had a low strand rate (64%), so it would stand to reason he has room to be even better this year even before considering any year-over-year improvements that would be expected of a pitcher after their first season.

TL;DR, strand rate is a metric you can look at for major leaguers to consider if their performance (good or bad) is likely to continue, or if regression should be expected. I assume it would be true for college pitchers also, but I can't say for certain.

Agree. Here are the MLB stats. There is little reason to expect college to be much different. Our Maxwell Moment was the exception where the dude had a high WHIP and managed to pull multiple rabbits feet out of his posterior. He was the exception we noted at the time.

Like you point out, HRs kill the ERA when those pitchers have a high WHIP. Good defense can help avoid runs from a high WHIP; currently we have a statistically average defense. Also a team that steals effectively will increase the ERA they extract from a high WHIP player.

I expect when we play better teams, the higher WHIP will bite us more. That's why they are better teams. Clemson lets other teams make mistakes and takes advantage. So do we and make it rain runs.

 

[gtbeak]

ECHO....echo...echo

 

[GTNavyNuke]

ECHO....echo...echo

Kind of like food poisoning, not better the second time around.

 

[gtrower]

Paraphrasing some info from their 247 board that I don’t think is “insider” enough to worry about here.

Auburn missing 2 regular starters tonight: Snow and Belyeu. Both .300ish hitters. One got hit in the face last weekend with a pitch and the other got hurt against uga.

Auburn starting Chatterton (6.66 ERA, 7 starts, 24.1 innings) but looks like they’re planning for a staff day.

They’re reporting Lodise is not in the starting lineup for us either due to a strain that we’re be cautious with.