Canes vs who? Elimination game...

[Brian Piccolo]

This wasn't a CWS team. Heck, last year's team probably shouldn't have been either.

This is just so stupid.

The professional whiners lose any credibility they may have had when they make silly claims like this.

# 1 in the RPI last year and # 3 this year. Best defensive team in the country this year. One of the best offenses in the country last year.

But we weren't CWS teams.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

We have been extremely fortunate in our path to Omaha the past two years. If we match up with anyone else in the Supers, then we don't go.

We were a national seed both years. We were supposed to go to Omaha. We would have been a favorite at home against anybody we faced.

This is not a rational statement to make. It's borderline retarded.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

How is it that we go into a season with our [URL=https://www.canesinsight.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] being Thomas Woodrey? Why did we have to throw a patched up Eric Erickson out there to start a regional?

This is so ironic.

You first admit that we can't get our best arms to campus and that we should do better developing college guys into aces.

Then you complain that we have guys like Woodrey and Erickson as our aces. But those are the good college pitchers you were yearning for!

Woodrey was great last year. He had a 2.88 ERA. Erickson was very good and was hugely valuable (as a # 2 by the way) in 2008.

No, those are not the kind of college pitchers I am yearning for. Neither one of those guys was/are good enough to make a championship run. You can keep posting regular season ERA's, but the bottom line is that we keep sending soft-tossing lefties out there and we keep losing to better pitchers. You claim that we can't get elite arms because they get drafted, but we continue to lose to teams that have better pitching than we do. We haven't won the first game in Omaha since 2006. Either we can't get there or our #1 isn't good enough to beat another #1 . If that's not an indictment on our pitching, then yee-haw, let's just be happy with getting there occasionally.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Just because we made an appearance in Omaha doesn't mean we should have been there.

True but not relevant in this case.

We were a national seed both years which means we were seeded into Omaha.

It's amazing that you don't understand that.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

Considering that national seeds continue to flop every year, I might pull the reins back on using the RPI as a defense for how great our program is.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Considering that national seeds continue to flop every year, I might pull the reins back on using the RPI as a defense for how great our program is.

The RPI is not predictive so you make the same mistake that most bozos do. You're looking for validation in postseason results. Stop it.

National seeds keep 'flopping' because college baseball (and the tournament format) are very random. If you don't know that then you don't follow the sport.

We were a national seed both years which means we were supposed to be in Omaha. For somebody to claim that we shouldn't have been there is moronic. Period.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

You can keep posting regular season ERA's, but the bottom line is that we keep sending soft-tossing lefties out there and we keep losing to better pitchers.

We won our last national championship with a soft-tossing lefty as our ace.

You don't like the results so you complain about the process. But the process is the same. You're just playing the result.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

Considering that national seeds continue to flop every year, I might pull the reins back on using the RPI as a defense for how great our program is.

The RPI is not predictive so you make the same mistake that most bozos do. You're looking for validation in postseason results. Stop it.

National seeds keep 'flopping' because college baseball (and the tournament format) are very random. If you don't know that then you don't follow the sport.

We were a national seed both years which means we were supposed to be in Omaha. For somebody to claim that we shouldn't have been there is moronic. Period.

Who claimed that we shouldn't have been there? Keep your posters straight, especially if you don't have the self control to avoid insults.

As for the RPI, how do we know it's accurate? There are about 15 computer rankings. Why is the RPI the gold standard. Just because the NCAA picked that one?

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Either we can't get there or our #1 isn't good enough to beat another #1.

Our # 1 was good enough to win in 2008. He handed a lead to our closer in the 9th. Just didn't finish it.

And in 2006 Scott Maine beat a guy who as better than him (Dallas Buck).

You're trying to discern some kind of order from what are mostly random outcomes in small sample sizes.

Get real.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

You can keep posting regular season ERA's, but the bottom line is that we keep sending soft-tossing lefties out there and we keep losing to better pitchers.

We won our last national championship with a soft-tossing lefty as our ace.

You don't like the results so you complain about the process. But the process is the same. You're just playing the result.

There are soft tossing lefties in the major leagues. Soft tossing lefties can be elite. We don't have elite lefties. We have good lefties. If we have any desire to win games in Omaha ever again, we need elite pitching. Not sure how anyone could disagree with that. It's true at all levels of baseball. Pitching wins. I guarantee you that Jim and Gino aren't saying "we put together a great team. Don't change a thing." I'm not a fire Morris guy, but if they're not trying to figure out what to change to have success in Omaha, then clean house. I know they're not thinking that way, though.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

Either we can't get there or our #1 isn't good enough to beat another #1.

Our # 1 was good enough to win in 2008. He handed a lead to our closer in the 9th. Just didn't finish it.

And in 2006 Scott Maine beat a guy who as better than him (Dallas Buck).

You're trying to discern some kind of order from what are mostly random outcomes in small sample sizes.

Get real.

You're not convicting anyone with the random small sample size bit. That's 15 straight post-seasons. We have looked terrible against top competition for eight straight years. Funny how the random small sample size doesn't ever bite our opponents until after they play us.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

You're not convicting anyone with the random small sample size bit.

If so it's sad that this board is so full of clueless people who can't analyze things that are right in front of their face.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

We have looked terrible against top competition for eight straight years.

This year we have the most wins (23) vs. the top 50.

Arizona and UC Santa Barbara were not the best teams we played.

You're just whiny and delusional.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

You're not convicting anyone with the random small sample size bit.

If so it's sad that this board is so full of clueless people who can't analyze things that are right in front of their face.

You're angry.

Getting absolutely shut down EVERY SINGLE YEAR isn't random. It's not "random" that Kevin O'Sullivan's teams pucker up at this point every year. It's not random that so many teams have made back to back (to back) title series apparances.

God help us if our coaches aren't trying to figure this out and are sitting around saying "nothing we can do when it's random".

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Funny how the random small sample size doesn't ever bite our opponents until after they play us.

We're better than most teams we play so them losing probably isn't the result of a small sample size.

The best teams want to play as many games as possible because their advantage will win out over a larger sample. Underdogs thrive in the current format because the sample size favors them.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

We have looked terrible against top competition for eight straight years.

This year we have the most wins (23) vs. the top 50.

Arizona and UC Santa Barbara were not the best teams we played.

You're just whiny and delusional.

Post-season. I don't know that it means a whole lot that we dominated the RPI from February to May. We get exposed every June anymore. Please point to the seasons in the past 8 years when we lost but played really well.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Getting absolutely shut down EVERY SINGLE YEAR isn't random.

Everybody gets 'shut down' except one team.

This argument is even dumber than previous ones I've seen.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

Funny how the random small sample size doesn't ever bite our opponents until after they play us.

We're better than most teams we play so them losing probably isn't the result of a small sample size.

The best teams want to play as many games as possible because their advantage will win out over a larger sample. Underdogs thrive in the current format because the sample size favors them.

Considering that the champion is determined under the current format, could we revisit our philosophy so that we have a chance of winning a title? Grinding it out with above average pitching gets you Coastal titles. But we don't put those under the scoreboard.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

God help us if our coaches aren't trying to figure this out and are sitting around saying "nothing we can do when it's random".

I mean this is comical.

So because I acknowledge that small samples in baseball are random then I'm somehow in favor of doing nothing to tweak the program.

You're a clown.

 

[KeyWestConchs]

Getting absolutely shut down EVERY SINGLE YEAR isn't random.

Everybody gets 'shut down' except one team.

This argument is even dumber than previous ones I've seen.

No they don't. Some teams play well up to the point when they are eliminated. Vandy had a phenomenal run last year. Same with Virginia the year before.

I'm going to ask this again: can you name the last time that we lost but played well?