MVC Standings

[WSUwatcher]

Remarkably enough, WSU has now won six straight conference games. Yes, they were against the bottom dwellers, but the Shocks took care of business, which hasn't been true of everyone in the upper echelon. And that's all we can ask: just win the games that come along, and hope for the best.

[Ricardo del Rio]

The ISUblue series was a killer. Just awful.

I do not know what to think about the future except without better hitting, it doesn't matter how great the pitching is.

Bring back the '98 Shockers.

[1972Shocker]

The ISUblue series was a killer. Just awful.

I do not know what to think about the future except without better hitting, it doesn't matter how great the pitching is.

Bring back the '98 Shockers.

Unless the bats change back to the cannons allowed in those days we are probably not going to see that kind of offense again. OTOH, Casey Gillaspie has proven that if you a good hitter you still put impressive numbers even with the toned down sticks. Unfortunately, Casey Gillaspies do no grow on trees.

Nevertheless, it's still possible to be significantly better offensively than we have been this year and in recent years.

[Wuzee]

also ... can we use the juiced bats against MVC fourth starters every weekend and play a schedule that Centenary (3), Howard (3), Kansas Newman, Bethany, Friends, Sterling (2), and much weaker KU and K-State teams.

That team was fun to watch -- but the playing fields are not the same.

[SB Shock]

Unless the bats change back to the cannons allowed in those days we are probably not going to see that kind of offense again. OTOH, Casey Gillaspie has proven that if you a good hitter you still put impressive numbers even with the toned down sticks. Unfortunately, Casey Gillaspies do no grow on trees.

Nevertheless, it's still possible to be significantly better offensively than we have been this year and in recent years.

We hear this excuse...the bats...the bats. It is like we are living on fantasy island.

It is not how many runs WSU is scoring relative to 1999, it is how good today team offense is RELATIVE to all other teams in college baseball today. WSU was the best hitting/scoring team in the MVC. Today It is now #3 or #4 in the MVC depending on the metric you use. You use to be able to find WSU in the Top 50 in the various hitting categories in baseball - not today. You will find Evansville in the Top 50 of scoring. WSU is 132.

You would also find WSU pitching staff as one of the best - Top 10, Top 25, now they are in the Top 50-100 depending on the year.

WSU just does not have the same talent and depth in the program that it used to have. What is really disgusting, there are MVC teams with better talent than WSU, and these schools don't even invest in their program like WSU, they don't have the fan support.

Now, my hope is of course is that Butler will be able to take those resources and turn this program around.

[SB Shock]

also ... can we use the juiced bats against MVC fourth starters every weekend and play a schedule that Centenary (3), Howard (3), Kansas Newman, Bethany, Friends, Sterling (2), and much weaker KU and K-State teams.

That team was fun to watch -- but the playing fields are not the same.

WSU non-conference strength of schedule in 1999 was 53rd and was 94 overall. Their offense was ranked 14th in the nation in runs scored.

corrected number for 1999: 63 Non-Conference, 82 Overall SOS (I had been looking at INTENDED instead of ACTUAL).

In 2006, WSU offense was ranked 29th in scoring per game, their Non-Conference SOS was 63rd and overall SOS was 74th.

Corrected number for 2006: 63 Non-Conference, 91 Overall SOS (I had been looking at INTENDED instead of ACTUAL).

WSU offense was not some paper-tiger that some one to make out. Sure they might have played some easy teams (but all teams do), but they also played quality opponents (that they won at a high rate) and succeeded.

[Wuzee]

You're looking at the wrong year from the one I'm referencing, but I would be interested in the 1998 stats. That schedule seemed especially weak, and lacked OSU / OU / LBSU games, for instance, and only had one against CSFU.

[SB Shock]

You're looking at the wrong year, but I would be interested in the 1998 stats.

No information on WSU non-conference SOS, but overall SOS was 81. WSU offense was ranked #1

[SB Shock]

Capture.JPG

[SB Shock]

Here is the same chart with SOS superimposed, the bars don't line up perfectly with the year, but you should be able to figure it out.

Capture.JPG

[DUShock]

Thanks SB.

[Ricardo del Rio]

Don't mess with SB on facts and statistical information and what it means.

[Wuzee]

That's great stuff, SB. Thanks for putting it together.


One minor point -- non-D1 games don't count against your SOS, whereas I believe they are recorded in the stats. WSU played as many games (5) against non-D1 opponents in 1998 than they have in the past six seasons combined, accounting for 9 percent of the regular season in 1998. WSU outscored those opponents by an average score of 20.0-1.6. Even if the non-D1 stats are excluded, though, the 1998 team was obviously a statistical outlier.


The graph shows that the 2011 bat change is not an imagined issue. Run production continues to fall across the board. I was surprised to see that WSU's past four teams have been above average offensively and within one run per game of the Top 50 programs. I do think Gene did a poor job of adjusting to the bats, and refused to play small ball consistently. That was his biggest on-field crime given the advantage we enjoyed on the mound. To wit: One run is worth more than one run when your pitching is superior to your opponent. Why were we bunting for hits in straight sacrifice situations? Why were we playing for crooked numbers so often? His approach didn't impact the runs per game much, but IMO it did effect the win-loss column.


It's doubtful we will ever again see a lineup the caliber of the 1998 team. Looking forward, though, I'm hopeful that the energy and youth of HCTB's staff combined with Kemnitz' reputation, increased name recognition and new vibrancy on campus can help to reclaim some of the lost recruiting ground in the state and regionally if not nationally. I like the inroads we've made this year in KC, for instance, with five or six position players — some highly regarded — from that area and one from Manhattan.


Go Shox.

[SB Shock]

One minor point -- non-D1 games don't count against your SOS, whereas I believe they are recorded in the stats. WSU played as many games (5) against non-D1 opponents in 1998 than they have in the past six seasons combined, accounting for 9 percent of the regular season in 1998. WSU outscored those opponents by an average score of 20.0-1.6. Even if the non-D1 stats are excluded, though, the 1998 team was obviously a statistical outlier.

That may or may not be valid point, but it also not like other teams don't play non-D1 opponents also. I suspect if subtract any Non-Div I games from WSU 1998 stats they still are one of the best offensive teams.

The graph shows that the 2011 bat change is not an imagined issue. Run production continues to fall across the board.

I don't think anybody has argued that bats didn't cut back scoring. But if WSU maintains it talent and keeps it scoring relative to other programs - but WSU offense went from Top 30-50 to Top 120-130.

was surprised to see that WSU's past four teams have been above average offensively and within one run per game of the Top 50 programs.

Being ranked offensively in the mid-100's is not a good thing. Second a 1 run difference between you and Bottom 50 programs is significant. That is 10% reduction in wins due to offense.

I do think Gene did a poor job of adjusting to the bats, and refused to play small ball consistently.

Gene poor adjustment was in recruiting talented hitters. Small ball is a situational tactic, is not a means to end. There are plenty of analysis that show that small ball only increases the chances to score 1 run, but cuts the amount of runs you score on average. In a late inning game where you are behind by a run or tied it makes sense. Also, it does seem that hitters who struggle, also seem to struggle also playing small ball.

It's doubtful we will ever again see a lineup the caliber of the 1998 team.

I would settle for mid-2000's good hitting team combined with good pitching.

Looking forward, though, I'm hopeful that the energy and youth of HCTB's staff combined with Kemnitz' reputation, increased name recognition and new vibrancy on campus can help to reclaim some of the lost recruiting ground in the state and regionally if not nationally. I like the inroads we've made this year in KC, for instance, with five or six position players — some highly regarded — from that area and one from Manhattan.

I'm hopeful, but actions are needed on the field.


Go Shox.[/QUOTE]

[Wuzee]

Gene's poor adjustment was in recruiting talented hitters. Small ball is a situational tactic, is not a means to end. There are plenty of analysis that show that small ball only increases the chances to score 1 run, but cuts the amount of runs you score on average. In a late inning game where you are behind by a run or tied it makes sense. Also, it does seem that hitters who struggle, also seem to struggle also playing small ball.

I pretty much agree with everything here.

It's unquestioned that we don't have the talent advantage we enjoyed in the 90s from our position players. There are lots of reasons for that -- probably fodder for another thread. (as maybe this should have been. sorry folks)

It's unquestioned that small ball is a situational tactic. The devil is in the details there. I disagree that small ball should only be the course "In a late inning game where you are behind by a run or tied." Small ball puts pressure on their defense, and if successful puts pressure their offense. I don't care what the averages are around the country for small ball -- If you can increase a lead from, say, one run to two runs on a team in the 5th inning with (insert name of WSU stud pitcher here) on the mound that you can then hand off to (insert name of WSU stud reliever here) you should do it.* WSU teams, because of their traditional strong pitching, have ridiculous winning percentages when leading after 6 innings. Even this year's group with the shaky bully is 22-1 when leading after 6 innings and 0-19 when trailing (3-3 when tied). Increasing the number of times the former happens is a very good thing.

As to the last assertion: All the more reason to give a guy two chances to get a straight sac down.

(BTW -- I appreciate the tone of this convo. Good stuff, sb.)


*Depending on the personnel coming to the plate. Swing away Casey!